Friday, 28 February 2014

Charlie
Bolton's current petition (please sign it!)calling
for direct bus links through Bedminster to Temple Meads, prompts a
review of where we've got to on the need for a multimodal transport
hub at the city's main station instead of the tinpot links that we have now.

On
Tuesday, Bristol's Cabinet is poised to give the nod
to spending £21 million on improving transport access to, and
within, the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone around the station.
Well, Tuesday's Mardi Gras, isn't it? Spend it now, and pay back
later..... from the expected business rates raised in the Zone.
Same formula as the Arena.

This
transport spend includes:

straightening
out Temple Gate/Temple Circus. At £11 million, this takes up the
bulk of the cash. As it will leave a smaller road footprint, some
development land should be released too.

A
bit more (£6 million) goes toward access to the Arena site, 'to make
the site more attractive to potential development', presumably the
offices/apartments that are required to offset some of the Arena
costs.

The
remaining £4m chunk goes to 'improved cycling and walking
infrastructure on key routes in and through the TQEZ, sustainably
linking residents with job opportunities'. This appears to include
some unexpected but welcome projects like (at last) a cycle route
along the Callington Road Link and, odder still, the Conham Riverside
bike route.

But
it doesn't include a multi-modal transport hub

A
Temple Meads public transport hub has surfaced occasionally in the
politicians' rhetoric for years. Only the Greens have made it a priority. But now that the
high spending, low benefit prestige projects - especially the Arena
and the Metrobus - have been pushed through, can't we look at
something that really would bring about a step-change in the quality
of the city's public transport network?Despite
all the half-promises, NEVER has the Bristol administration come up
with a clear proposal, or even an outline brief, for what an
interchange should provide.

So
let me float one....

The
Objective:

Overall,
to make travel quicker and easier for all.

In
particular, to provide a public transport system that is good enough
to tempt significant numbers to choose not to use cars – thus
freeing up road space for all travellers

The
problem:

Every
journey by public transport involves waiting time – and many trips
involve transfer time from one mode or route to another. By and
large, these things are done under sufferance. They're not a good
use of time, and bus stops or station platforms are none too
welcoming. There's the weather; often the darkness and insecurity;
the doubt about when or whether a bus will turn up; and for many
ongoing trips, a walk between the relevant stops and the doubt about
which is the best one to use.

Of
course these discomforts aren't the only downside of using public
transport, but together they're a very big one – and until they're
alleviated public transport is going to be second choice to the car
for most of those travellers who have the choice.

The Answer:That's
where an interchange comes in, because it tackles all these problems
head on. It cuts journey times by much more, and for many more travellers, than any Metrobus route could hope for. And it does it efficiently, comfortably, and safely.

Here
I float my own idea about what the minimum on offer at the TM Hub
should be:

Public
transport (bus, train, or ferry) to all
parts of Bristol, daytime and evening.

A
single covered, enclosed, waiting area with seating, within one
minute of bus pick-up, three minutes of trains or ferry

Real
time information displays for all servicesTicket
sales (all modes) before boarding

Public
transport to outlying areas, not just those served by rail, eg
Clevedon, Thornbury, Wells/Radstock.

Retail,
refreshments and other amenity on-site

bike
hire and storage

Left
luggage

Wi-fi

a
dedicated and very frequent service to the Centre and Broadmead

Would
it work?

Who
knows... the psychological bond between driver and car is very hard
to break. But an interchange of this quality would certainly do the
job to an order many times better than any other single project.

Is
it do-able?

The
space is there. Plot 6, alongside the Old Station, is ideally
placed (though rail electrification looks like it will need two
further tracks, either adjoining or through it). There's also the
cleared space around Bristol and Exeter House, and (less viable)
around the derelict shell of the Royal Mail building. All of these,
individually or in combination, have the potential to provide a real
hub. All are that rare thing in a city centre, undeveloped sites.
And all are part of the Enterprise Zone, enabling a joined-up
development plan that can – if the will is there - provide
joined-up transport.

Who's
involved?

Principally,
the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (self-appointed
business reps and local authority nominees, including our own dear
Mayor), along with Network Rail. The HCA own part of the land, too.
Note that redevelopment of the station itself will be a Network Rail
task; it will be major, involving new public access beneath the
station, and a new concourse. Although all these bodies have public
responsibilities, the public themselves are not a party to the plans.

Will
they do it?

The
broad intention is enshrined in the official planning frameworks.The Central Area Plan
(p40) promises:

The
development of sites adjacent to Temple Meads Station will be
expected to deliver improved public transport interchange facilities
and new and enhanced walking / cycle routes as part of the
development of Bristol Temple Quarter.

7.14
The precise location and type of interchange facilities that will
be sought will be explored in more detail in the Spatial Framework
being prepared for Bristol Temple Quarter. It is likely however
that the development of the sites adjoining the station to the
north will be required to accommodate this enhanced interchange
function. Facilities will need to be fully accessible. “The Spatial Framework
that excerpt refers to is (as customary in such documents) quite
flowery in its description (p35):

A
21st
Century transport interchange at the heart of a regenerated mixed use
quarter. A destination, where people can meet their travelling
needs, move easily and conveniently between transport modes and
connect with the city centre and surrounding neighbourhoods.

“......
given the large numbers of people commuting in future to Temple
Quarter, a step change in the capacity of bus provision to the area
will be required. This will require new services, with high
frequencies and high levels of capacity, to address the access
requirements of the area. Failure to deliver major improvements to
bus access will substantially constrain the ability to unlock the
development potential of the Enterprise Zone. “

Monday, 24 February 2014

Another day, another
bog standard unimaginative bid to pack in a few semis on a brownfield
site.

This one's where the
Man in Space pub now stands, closed and forlorn,
in Stockwood, near a parade of run-down shops. This is no depressed
area, though... like most of the Stockwood 'plateau', the immediate
area is filled with decent, privately owned semis. In fact the
developer is at pains to assure us that this “proposal
is not for high density apartments. It is for 14 family sized homes
with parking and garden.“ Four pairs of semis, plus two 'triple'
units, according to the indicative plans. Much like the rest of the
neighbourhood, then, except that on this one garages won't come as
part of the package; it looks like the front 'gardens' will be paved
over instead. There's a playpark over the road, and the bus stops
for a frequent service to town (3 or 4 miles) are under two hundred
metres away. The pub will be gone, though!

All in all an
unremarkable development. If it goes ahead, Stockwood will be more
Stockwood still. The development won't provide local employment, it
won't reduce the need to travel, it won't provide any new amenity.
It could - if the planning conditions are right - include some
solar panels and even some better land drainage than the present use
provides, but it's unlikely to give more than a nod to such
progressive ideas.

But it would be
utterly amazing if it included such innovative (though proven)
standards as
Passivhaus , though
many of us believe this must be the norm if we're to take climate
change seriously. And it won't touch the demand for affordable
housing in a market that virtually excludes low earners. Nor will
begin to recognise that more cars are bad news... we might expect a
good 20 to 30 extra just from this 'infill' development, even though
shops, library, health centre, school, and public transport are all
an easy flat walk away. The notion of a 'car-free', or even low
car-dependency development, won't come into the planning process.

Why not? We know
about climate change. We know about homelessness and
unaffordability. We know traffic on our roads is expected to
increase 30% by 2030 if we go on as we are.

It's mad to just
carry on as before. Small sites like the Man in Space are the big
opportunity, the low hanging fruit, that can lead the change.
Leaving it to the speculative market delivers only the bland, the
unadventurous, and a quick and easy profit, with all the real costs
externalised.

That's George
Osborne, February 2014 in a speech that also described fracking as a
'green' technology that will reduce UK carbon emissions.

George, even apart
from your attempt to rebrand 'green' to include nuclear power
stations, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Why do you presume
that ideology drives the opposition? Can't you even recognise that
there is a real, evidence-based argument out there. The only
'ideology' here is the principle that we should leave this
planet in as good, or better condition as we found it. Assuming (ok, it's a bold assumption) that you go along with that, what
further ideology have you identified that opposes civil nuclear
power, as matter of principle and belief, as a 'world view', rather
than as a rational position?

Remember,

from the start
nuclear power has been inextricably linked with nuclear warfare (the
unthinkable)

sixty years on, we
still don't know what to do with the waste – or how generations to
come will cope with the poisonous legacy we leave

We've had more than
enough of our own costly accidents, but worldwide there have been big
scale disasters with huge health and economic impacts.

Every stage of the
nuclear cycle from mine to waste dump is fraught with risk, both
natural and man-made, to life.

(this one ought to
appeal to you, George) you can't insure a nuclear power station –
the cost/risk factor is untenable.

The timescales for
bringing new nuclear on line make it largely irrelevant to the urgent
need for greenhouse gas reduction.

Any or all these
things make for a reasoned case to reject nuclear power as an energy
source.

It's you, George, that's the ideologue. We know that you're guided by
more than one – the economic ideologies of exponential growth, the
supremacy of the market, and the 'hidden hand' that will turn
personal greed and ambition into a public 'good'. You certainly have
a right wing 'small government' ideology. All these beliefs clearly
guide your management of the national economy. Even your acceptance
of man-made global warming is expressed as a 'belief (“I'm someone
who believes climate change is happening, that it's caused by human
beings”), not simply as an acceptance of the scientific consensus.

You've not bothered to look at the whole picture, the whole balance
of energy supply sources and consumption and how they serve the long
term public interest.

Maybe that's because you let your economic
ideology, right or wrong, dictate your whole approach.[Added 23/2/2014] Forgive me for singling you out, George. The other lot are doing their best to follow your bad example. Caroline Flint, shadow energy secretary, seems to think the subsidy for Hinkley C is acceptable - and that nuclear is renewable energy!

Monday, 10 February 2014

That
homophobic UKIP councillor in Henley-on-Thames
may have had his own ideas about what's caused the ever-more-frequent
extremes of weather. True, there is something apocalyptic about the floods and the storms
that encourages that kind of irrational response . As I write,
every rail link between Devon and Cornwall and the mainland has been broken by the high seas or the unending rain – and even the urban areas of
Torbay and Plymouth aren't going to reconnected to the rest of the country anytime soon.
Who'd'a' thunk such a thing could happen?

The
rational explanation for the 'weather' is equally apocalyptic. It
only gets mentioned in passing, though - and then only apologetically, anticipating a backlash. Climate Change – a
reality, and very probably a key contributory cause of our
unprecedented extreme weather – scarcely dare speak its name in polite
society. It's much too discomfiting. Following the abject failure
of the world's politicians to tackle the causes, they now seem
equally reluctant to acknowledge, let alone respond to, the effects
that are already upon us. And we've barely started yet. It's
going to get worse, far worse.

Yet
right now, all we see is a localised blame game being played out
among the politicians (who seem blind to the overriding science).
And a grossly incompetent global warming sceptic (ie. 'Do Nothing'
advocate) is still allowed to remain in post as Environment Secretary.

Meanwhile,
I see that back in 2011, his predecessor Lord Henley (what is it
about Henley?) dismissed the £100 million cost of restoring an
alternative rail link to Plymouth as “far too
expensive”.

About this Blog

This one's from the little known Bristolian outpost of Stockwood, first settled by city expats back in the fifties. Leafy, open, and close to the countryside.... until they grub up the Green Belt and open spaces to build an 'urban extension'.

Written by an adoptive Stockwoodsman, arrived from the wild north-east back in 2004, this blog sets out to look at Stockwood and Bristol issues, mostly from a green perspective